Has China brought the silence of Pacific leaders on climate change?

In recent days Pacific Island Leaders have stepped up their campaign for both action on climate change and for compensation for its alleged impact on their environments and economies.

While the "developed world" has generally been the target, a number of Island leaders have specifically targeted Australia, demanding the Prime Minister attend the Glasgow Climate Summit, end the production of electricity from coal fired power stations and end coal exports. One assumes they add to that cutting gas production and LNG exports as well.

The PNG Prime Minister, James Marape, has even demanded developed countries apologise for the impact of global warming on Pacific communities. Significantly, he did not name Australia directly (unlike other Pacific leaders) because his government is seeking yet another cash handout from the Australian Government.

What is significant about the statements by Pacific leaders, both collectively as Pacific Islands Forum Members and individually is that China has not been criticised despite incontrovertible evidence China is easily the greatest contributor to rising emission levels.

In this contribution I want to delve into why Pacific Leaders are frankly adopting double standards on the whole climate change issue, and even on its impact on their environment.

China contributes around 28 per cent of all emissions. Australia's contribution is just one per cent.

You would be entitled to think that Pacific leaders, so concerned about the issue, would be targeting China even more than they are targeting Australia, and other "developed" nations such as the United States.

There has been a deafening silence not only on China's rising emission levels, but also on the apparent decision by President Xi not to attend the Glasgow Summit.

Before I outline why I believe this double standard is happening, I want t raise one environmental issue our closest neighbours – Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands – must address if they want to be taken seriously on the climate change issue.

There can be no question that the extensive destruction of tropical rainforests is harmful to the environment, and especially when the destruction is illegal, and unchecked; and when local communities and the national government are not paid royalties and taxes.

In both Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands the legal and illegal destruction of pristine tropical rainforests is rampant. There is almost no downstream processing of logs in either country.

And what is the destination of these high value unprocessed logs?

Green environment groups in Australia and worldwide have been targeting the destruction of rain forests and unprocessed exports for some time in both PNG and the Solomon Islands. All agree that over 80 per cent of the logs exported are going to China.

And it has been reported in a number of research papers that a not insignificant percentage end up as expensive timber furniture products exported to Australia, the United States and Europe.

The facts relating to legal and illegal logging just demonstrate the stranglehold China is securing over the economic future of both countries. To logging exports to China can be added a growing list of other products such as coffee, cocoa, and of course fisheries.

In the case of the Solomon Islands, which has only been aligned with China since 2018, more than fifty per cent of its total exports are now going to China. In the case of PNG, the share is rising as well.

That brings me to the key message I want to leave with On Line Opinion readers.

It is absolutely clear to me that China has skilfully brought the silence and even acquiescence, of just about every Pacific Island leader and nation on global warming, the Glasgow Summit, and on China's own appalling record.

It has done so through two very effective means.

First, China has stepped up its Belt and Road and other loan engagements with PNG, the Solomon Islands, and most Pacific Island nations, through deals that lack transparency and require the use of only Chinese contractors.

Recently the Lowy Institute's "Pacific Aid Map" reported that China had reduced aid to the Pacific. That is true but China has replaced aid with Belt and Road and other loan programs giving Chinese contractors a stranglehold over infrastructure, communications, and increasingly fisheries.

Hardly a week goes by when I don't see in PNG alone another project announced that looks tailor-made for Exim Bank and other PRC financial institution loans to fund the work which will have to be carried out by PRC contractors only.

The result already is that most Pacific Island nations have levels of indebtedness to China that are beyond their capacity to repay, at least over the short to medium term. That means they are effectively hostage to China. If China's economic and fiscal positions deteriorate, as appears to be happening, one has to wonder just how requests for loan deferral will be treated. (Of course PNG has already sought and received Australian Government approval for two loans in the last two years valued at around $500 million to have repayment deferred).

So apart from the Belt and Road and wider lending China has, and is, negotiating with Pacific Island leaders there is another, even more sinister, factor that I believe is effectively buying the silence of Pacific Island leaders.

Increasingly, the trading links between the Pacific Island nations and China are dominating the export sector in key industries: agriculture, fisheries, minerals, and LNG, and of course timber.

Trading links with Australia and other nations such as Japan and South Korea seem to be flat at least.

The capacity of China to influence Pacific Island nations through its dominance of trade must not be underestimated. Despite the pandemic it continues to grow.

China knows the more dependent small island nations are on it for their key exports, the more influence, and even control, it will have over them.

Sadly, it would appear that includes buying their silence when it comes to China's failure to reduce emissions (it has 1,000 coal fired power stations and is building more).

If Pacific leaders believe Australia's record on climate change must be criticised then they should feel free to do so. But surely they must avoid blatant double standards and be prepared to robustly call on China to do more as well?

They won't, for the reasons I have outlined. And isn't it time the Australian Prime Minister, and Foreign Minister, called out the double standards instead of maintaining a silence that most leaders, and people, see as a sign of weakness, not strength?